Sex, murder and bodies in suitcases - who were the men involved?

10 minutes ago Share Save Leigh Boobyer & Emma Hallett BBC News, West of England Share Save

Albert Alfonso/Flickr Yostin Mosquera (L), Albert Alfonso (M) and Paul Longworth (R) look like they were having the time of their life on holiday

The murder of Albert Alfonso and Paul Longworth by Yostin Mosquera revealed a world of extreme sex, dark web videos and adult content creation. But how did the three men know each other - and why did Mosquera murder them?

Warning: This article contains details that some may find distressing, including violence and descriptions of a sexual nature.

Three men enjoying a speedboat ride at a luxury resort in Colombia - Albert Alfonso's selfie with Yostin Mosquera and Paul Longworth makes them look like the best of friends. But the reality was quite different. Behind the smiles there were complex relationships based on extreme sex, domination and financial transactions, all existing alongside a loving and caring partnership. Four months after the photo was taken, Mosquera mercilessly killed both men in their London flat on 8 July 2024, before dismembering their bodies, and travelling more than 116 miles (186km) with them in a suitcase. He hired a man with a van to drive him to Bristol, who dropped him off close to the city's suspension bridge, where Mosquera planned to throw them off.

Albert Alfonso/Flickr Paul Longworth (L) and Albert Alfonso (R) had lived together for 20 years

Albert, 62, and Paul, 71, had previously been in a civil marriage and while they had split up, they remained close and continued to live together. Police described the men as without "huge family, friend circles", instead being "each other's everything, their rocks and their world". Albert was a swimming instructor and was training to be a lifeguard at Mode Club Gym in Acton, west London. He grew up in Bidart, France, and trained at a hotel school in Biarritz before moving to the UK to manage hotels. He was previously a general manager at 375 Kensington High Street - a luxury residential estate in west London with apartments and penthouses. In statements read to Woolwich Crown Court, former colleagues of Albert described him as "funny, authoritative and motivated".

The 999 call: 'There's blood coming out of the suitcases'

It was at this building that Albert met Paul, a handyman who had recently retired. They bonded over the fact they were both fostered and in February 2023 they entered a civil partnership, although Paul's friends told the BBC he "wasn't open about his sexuality" and referred to Albert as his brother. Paul was widely described by friends and neighbours as "extremely kind". Kevin Dore, 74, from Shepherd's Bush, used to drink with Paul and knew him for more than 20 years. "He's a nice, warm, generous person," he said. "Always polite. Always buy you a drink, sit down and have a chat." George Hutchison, who also used to drink with Paul, said: "He was just one of the boys. He was a very nice man, never did anybody any harm."

Albert Alfonso/Flickr Mosquera posted extreme sex videos online using pseudonyms

Although Albert was said to have been private about his personal life, the trial revealed a world of extreme sex which he frequently paid for, participated in and shared videos of online. It was a side of his life that Paul had nothing to do with, although he knew about it and seemed to accept it. Mosquera, a Colombian national, was also posting scores of videos of himself online performing extreme sex acts under various pseudonyms. Now 35, he lived in Medellin, and had five brothers and one sister, who died a few years ago. He also has two children. Albert and Mosquera started speaking over Skype from about 2012. By 2017, Albert started paying Mosquera for sexual videos, which reportedly became more extreme over time.

They finally met in person in 2023 when Mosquera travelled to England for the first time. But it seems Albert misjudged their sexual relationship. While it seemed Albert was in it for the sex, Mosquera was in it for the money. The court heard Albert had laid his whole life open to a man with whom his relationship was, in reality, transactional. Albert's bank statements show he received more than £17,500 between 2 September 2022 and 12 July 2024 from a company that operates an extreme pornography website. Between May 2022 and February 2024, Albert sent Mosquera a total of $7,735 across 72 payments - the equivalent of about £5,800. And between January 2024 and 19 June 2024 Albert transferred £928 via MoneyGram, which provides international money transfer services. In return, Mosquera posted porn across four websites, including more than 100 videos and images, online using pseudonyms. Customers had asked for sex shows and between 30 June 2022 and 12 June 2024 he earned $2,682.90.

Albert Alfonso/Flickr Photos showed Mosquera enjoying tourist sites in London

But Mosquera told the court he did not know Albert was sharing videos of him online until a few days before he murdered him - despite agreeing that he signed a consent form in 2023 allowing Albert to upload images of him online and for him to keep financial profits. In October 2023, Mosquera travelled to the UK and stayed in Albert's home. He told the court he was raped "every day" by Albert and did not take any enjoyment from the extreme sex acts, which he was paid to perform. In October 2023 Albert paid for Mosquera to visit him in the UK, staying at their London flat. During his stay, Mosquera visited Madame Tussauds, took a trip on an open top bus and went on a boat trip on the River Thames. Then in March 2024, Albert took Paul to Colombia where they stayed at Cartahenga - and Albert paid for Mosquera to come and meet them. Kevin Dore, one of Paul's drinking friends told the BBC they had warned him about travelling to the country. "We said 'that's a dangerous place Paul, don't muck about over there'," Mr Dore said.

Yostin Mosquera takes a zip line over Brighton Beach

In May that year Mosquera made another extreme video for Albert and within weeks he was back in the UK, staying with the pair - again at Albert's expense. This time Albert arranged a guest membership for Mosquera at his gym, set him up to join his work's five-a-side football team Whatsapp group, and enrolled him on a four-week English language course. The three men also travelled to Brighton for a day trip, visiting the pier and where Mosquera was filmed on a zip-wire. However, in the days before Mosquera landed at Heathrow Airport and during his stay, he was accessing information about Albert and Paul's finances, searched for a chest freezer and industrial liquidiser as well as looking up deadly poisons and arsenic. Paul and Albert were killed on 8 July.

Albert Alfonso/Flickr Mosquera told the court he only performed extreme sex acts in exchange for money

Paul was repeatedly hit with a hammer, shattering his skull. His body was then hidden in the bottom of a divan bed, while Mosquera waited for Albert to come home. During a recorded sex session, Mosquera stabbed Albert to death, after which he sang and danced around the room. He then accessed Albert's computer in an attempt to send £4,000 to his bank account in Colombia, as well as making other financial withdrawals. When this failed, he went to a nearby cashpoint and withdrew hundreds of pounds from Albert's accounts. Mosquera dismembered their bodies days later - placing their heads in the chest freezer and transporting other body parts in suitcases to Bristol. The unexpected and brutal killing of Albert and Paul shocked their community. Mr Dore said the nature of the murders have broken his heart. Mosquera was found guilty of the double murders after a trial at Woolwich Crown Court and he will be sentenced in October.

Additional reporting by Fiona Lamdin, Adam Crowther and Beth Cruse.

How Trump is using the courts to get what he wants - and changing the shape of presidential power

4 hours ago Share Save Gary O'Donoghue Chief North America correspondent Share Save

BBC

It was a warm, late May afternoon in 2024 in lower Manhattan. The jury in Donald Trump's trial over hush money paid by his former lawyer to adult film star Stormy Daniels was out deliberating for a second day. Assuming we were in for a long wait, I took myself off to lunch with the BBC team at the world-famous Katz's deli for a Reuben sandwich. Then all hell broke loose. The jury was returning. According to one rumour, they were just being sent home for the day; another suggested there was a verdict. Seconds before the BBC News at Ten went on air, I arrived breathless at the live television point outside the courthouse, smashing my phone screen on the pavement in my hurry. One by one, the verdicts filtered through: guilty... guilty... guilty... it went on.

Getty Images During his recent interview with Gary O'Donoghue, Donald Trump called judges who have suspended presidential executive orders "radical left lunatics"

All 34 charges came back guilty, and I spent that night's main news bulletin explaining the enormity of the idea that a former president was now a convicted felon – a first in US history. As the BBC's senior North America correspondent, I'd spent months covering the multitude of Trump's legal problems in courts up and down the East Coast. Four separate criminal cases; several civil actions; it was coming at him from all sides, threatening not just his liberty but his whole political and commercial existence. Spool on a year, and the boot is thoroughly on the other foot. Three major Supreme Court judgments – one giving presidents and former presidents broad immunity from prosecution; a second dismissing the ruling that Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election results disqualified him from running for office again; and a third, just last month, curbing district judges' abilities to stall the president's agenda – have all emboldened this president who, having reshaped the Supreme Court with a solid conservative majority, now has the lower courts in his sights.

Reuters US Supreme Court justices at the Supreme Court in 2022

Those federal district judges – who had often made rulings on immigration policy that they said applied nationwide – are now facing a full-frontal onslaught from an administration that has questioned their legitimacy, and some say flouted their very authority. The question is, should they fight back to reassert their authority – and if so, how can they? And will this all permanently reshape the balance of powers in the US, even after Donald Trump's term ends?

'The gravest assault on democracy'

Several judges – both active and retired – have told me that the scale of the "attack" is like nothing seen before. John E Jones III, a former judge in Pennsylvania, appointed by a Republican president, and now president of Dickinson College, said: "I think it's fair to say that in particular, the US district courts… [are] under attack by the administration in a way that is unprecedented." As well has his colourful remarks to me on the phone during our recent interview, the US President has variously called judges "crooked", "monsters", "deranged", "lunatics", "USA hating", and "radical left".

Getty Images Deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, has said that the country is living under a judicial tyranny

He has also called for the impeachment of those he disagrees with. And there have been threats to sue judges too. His deputy chief of staff for policy, Stephen Miller, has been even more forthright, declaring that the country is living under a judicial tyranny. "Each day, they change the foreign policy, economic, staffing, and national security policies of the administration," he posted on the social media site X in March. "It is madness. It is lunacy. It is pure lawlessness. "It is the gravest assault on democracy. It must and will end."

From death threats to doxxing

Judges have faced growing hostility, and in some cases threats of violence from the public. "[They] are facing threats that they never have faced before," says Nancy Gertner, a former federal judge who now teaches at Harvard Law School. She was appointed by President Bill Clinton and spent 17 years on the federal bench in Massachusetts. "There's no question that the kind of opprobrium that the administration heaps on judges with whom they disagree is unlike any other time." Judge Gertner says she knows of serving judges who have received death threats this year that are understood to have been prompted by their blocking or delaying some of the president's executive orders. There is no suggestion that Trump had any knowledge of the threats.

Figures compiled by the US Marshals Service, which is tasked with protecting the judiciary, show that, to mid-June, there were more than 400 threats against almost 300 judges – surpassing the totals for the entire year of 2022. Some of the threats involve doxxing – the publication of personal information about the person or their family, which risks opening them up to attack. Other forms of intimidation this year have been more sinister still. According to Esther Salas, a serving district judge in New Jersey, more than 100 judges have been subjected to fake pizza delivery orders. No big deal, you might think, but the deliveries are often accompanied with threats and in around 20 cases, the orders were placed by people who used the name Daniel Anderl, Judge Salas's late son. He was killed five years ago by a disgruntled lawyer from a case heard by his mother. The assailant, who also shot her husband, had posed as a pizza delivery man.

Getty Images Esther Salas's home following the attack in July 2020 that killed her son

Judge Salas told me of her reaction to hearing what was going on: "To say that I was angry is an understatement. And then of course, to have come home and tell my husband who nearly [died]." The rise in threats began before the current administration but Judge Salas says we are in new territory now. "We are inviting individuals to do us harm when inflammatory rhetoric [is used]," she claims. "That is giving a green light to anyone who thinks they may need to take things into their own hands. And our leaders know that." Many supporters of the current administration including Jeff Anderson, one of the architects of the Project 2025 program (which many saw as a blueprint for Trump's second term), reject the idea that presidential rhetoric is to blame for raising the temperature.

Mr Anderson argues that the left is more to blame for hostility towards judges: "The most high-profile threat to anyone on the federal courts was when someone tried to assassinate [the conservative] Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. "There's this tendency to try to characterise the Trump administration as being what has facilitated this. I think a lot of the more radical revolutionary notions that we need to take law in our own hands and the ends justify the means… tend to [be] from the left in America."

A blizzard of executive orders

While other presidents have clashed with the courts, Trump's confrontations are unquestionably unique in their scale and fury, and they were perhaps inevitable, given that he arrived in the White House with a blizzard of executive orders aimed at getting what he wanted quickly. On day one alone, 26 were signed. There have been another 140 to the beginning of July – more than President Joe Biden signed during his four-year term, and only around 100 fewer than President Barack Obama in his eight years in the White House.

Trump could have asked Congress to enact laws to implement these policies; after all, Republicans currently control both chambers. But that process takes time, and Congress has been preoccupied with the president's flagship domestic legislation – the so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" – meaning that there has been no time or political capital for other priorities. Of course, executive orders are perfectly within the president's prerogative. The power to make executive orders comes directly from Article II of the US Constitution, so Trump is not defying or bypassing the constitution – he's pulling the levers of government in a way he's allowed to do, provided the orders cite legislative authority; and those orders do have the force of law. What the president can't do, with the sweep of his pen, is make new laws, or do things that go contrary to the Constitution. And if Congress doesn't step in, then the only option for those who want to challenge the orders is to go to court.

Getty Images While other presidents have clashed with the courts, Trump's confrontations are unquestionably unique in their scale

The sweeping nature of the orders he has signed, many touching on constitutional issues such as the right of everyone born in the US to citizenship, has led to dozens of nationwide injunctions pending the outcome on the merits of the individual cases. That is why Trump's Supreme Court victory at the end of June, curbing such nationwide injunctions, is so significant. "These district court judges have been totally out of line and out of control," argues Jeff Anderson.

Are judges blocking 'electorate desires'?

The administration has deployed various arguments. The judiciary has been accused of "overreach" and judges themselves accused of being "activists". But perhaps the most fundamental – and most philosophical – criticism is that they are standing in the way of the will of the people. As Stephen Miller has put it, "out of control Marxist judges" are standing in the way of the "desires of the electorate". It's an argument that, according to many judges, misunderstands the constitution in a fundamental way. "We're a nation of laws, not men," explains judge John E Jones III. "A mandate to the president of the United States does not mean a mandate to disregard the law. That's evident, but this is papering over a fundamental disregard of the law and the constitution."

Getty Images Executive orders are perfectly within the president's prerogative under Article II of the US Constitution

There are signs that some individuals in the administration, despite its assertions to the contrary, could well be toying with flouting the authority of the courts. The president's border tsar, Tom Homan, went on television over a court's attempts to prevent the deportation of several hundred Venezuelans and said: "I'm proud to be a part of this administration. We're not stopping. … I don't care what the judges think." But, in his interview with me last week, the President denied he was defying the judiciary, pointing out that when rulings have gone against him, he has sought remedy through the court process. "I have too much respect for it to defy it. I have great respect for the judiciary. And you can see that," he told me, adding: "That's why I'm winning on appeal."

'The US faces a catastrophic situation'

Some vocal critics of the president go further and claim he's tearing up the whole system of checks and balances in which the three equal branches of government (the presidency, congress and the judiciary) each act as a break on the others. "This is a huge turning point for the country," says Professor Laurence Tribe, one of the nation's foremost constitutional experts, who has become a forthright critic of the president. He argues that Congress has ceased to perform its oversight function and fears "the United States is facing a catastrophic situation". "The idea of three branches… was hatched at our founding - before the rise of political parties and before the rise of demagogues as effective and charismatic as Trump," he told me. "The whole system is completely out of balance."

EPA

That balance that Professor Tribe talks about has long been debated and the shift in power towards the presidency is not a new complaint. After the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, which saw President Richard Nixon flout many of the norms followed by previous presidents, a whole slew of legislation was passed to curb the executive and make it more accountable. But some of the changes involved merely adopting new norms such as publication of presidential tax returns and avoiding financial conflicts of interest – and this president has showed little concern to be seen to follow those norms.

The judiciary is fighting back

When it comes to the relationship between the presidency and the courts, though, even Nixon stopped short of defying their authority, eventually handing over the infamous Watergate tapes, after months of refusing to do so, once the Supreme Court unanimously ordered it. Trump has come close to defiance. In one instance, after being ordered to facilitate the return of a man wrongly deported to El Salvador, Kilmar Ábrego García, the administration was accused of slow-walking the process of complying with the Supreme Court's decision. Even Trump's Attorney General, Pam Bondi, said: "He's not coming back to our country." It took two months for the administration to follow the court's order. That was seen by the president's critics as a taste of what could follow. After all, there are only two ways a president can be truly held to account – one is by removal at an election; the second is by impeachment in Congress, and Trump has already survived two of those.

AFP via Getty Images This battle is far from over – and its consequences for future presidents are unpredictable

But if there truly is a plan to defy or neuter the courts, the judiciary is not giving in without a fight. Even after the Supreme Court ruled to curb those nationwide injunctions at the end of June (incidentally, presidents of both parties have complained about such injunctions in the past), another judge slapped one on Trump's asylum policy. Earlier this month, a US district judge issued a fresh nationwide block on Trump's executive order restricting the automatic right to citizenship for babies born to undocumented migrants or foreign visitors, drawing more furious words from the White House. This battle is enjoined, but it's far from over – and its consequences for this president and future presidents are unpredictable. Top image credits: Bloomberg via Getty and EPA-EFE/REX/Shutterstock

Taylor Swift and Drake music giant files to list on US stock market

The move comes as two major US share indexes - the S&P 500 and Nasdaq Composite - closed at fresh record highs on Monday as share markets continue to rebound after a brief slump over concerns triggered by President Donald Trump's tariff policies.

The music powerhouse's line-up of international superstars also includes Billie Eilish, Ariana Grande and Harry Styles.

The company, which is already listed in the Netherlands, has a stock market valuation there of almost €50bn ($43.3bn; $58.5bn).

Universal Music Group's (UMG) - which is the world's biggest music group and owner of the record labels behind mega stars Taylor Swift, Drake and Lady Gaga - has filed to sell its shares in the US.

UMG said in its statement that it has filed a confidential statement with the US financial markets regulator, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

The potential public offering remains subject to review by the SEC, it added.

The company did not reveal the size of the planned US offering or how much it could raise.

Confidential filings allow firms to keep information private while engaging with regulators and assessing investor appetite for a share sale before disclosing details publicly.

Billionaire investor Bill Ackman's hedge fund Pershing Square, which is one of the biggest shareholders of UMG, has previously pushed the firm to list in the US.

In January, Mr Ackman posted on X that a listing in the US would push up UMG's value.

"We also believe the US listing will greatly improve trading liquidity for the shares," he said.

The global music conglomerate owns major record labels, including Motown Records, which was home to Marvin Gaye and Michael Jackson.

It also owns Capitol Music Group, which counts the Beatles and Katy Perry amongst its artists.

In 2024, UMG was involved in a dispute with TikTok over royalties.

The row saw UMG's music being muted or removed from the social media platform until both firms reached an agreement in May that year.

Accuser says 'rollercoaster' of Epstein files saga is a 'real weight' on victims

Watch: "It's exhausting" - Epstein accuser talks to the BBC about files saga

One of Jeffrey Epstein's accusers and a key witness in his associate Ghislaine Maxwell's sex trafficking trial is calling for the government to release information related to him, especially if there is "nothing to hide."

Annie Farmer has watched US President Donald Trump's recent handling of the case and the ensuing backlash from the MAGA movement, she said, with exhaustion.

Her feeling that the case has been politicised - with her abusers plastered throughout the media cycle leading to few results - leaves her feeling "used", she told the BBC during an interview on Monday.

"There are people who have used this to their advantage and tried to focus on elements of it that are sensational," she said.

But that doesn't mean there weren't real crimes committed, Ms Farmer said.

"Those victims are people with feelings that are trying to live their everyday lives, and this can feel like a real weight falling on us."

Ms Farmer, and her sister Maria, made the earliest known reports of abuse by Epstein to the NYPD and the FBI in 1996. Maria Farmer is currently suing the federal government, accusing it of negligence and failing to protect victims. Over the decades, Annie Farmer said her only sense of justice came from the conviction of Maxwell, Epstein's accomplice.

She remains very sceptical of the Trump administration's handling of the case - turning away from promises to release more information on the case, then saying there were no files to release, then seeking to make public related grand jury testimony.

"It's an emotional rollercoaster for the people involved," she said, adding that they were hopeful "more information could be coming".

The voices in the cockpit fuelling controversy over Air India crash

2 hours ago Share Save Soutik Biswas • @soutikBBC India correspondent Share Save

Getty Images Air India Flight 171 crashed into a crowded neighbourhood in Ahmedabad

When the preliminary report into the crash of Air India Flight 171 - which killed 260 people in June - was released, many hoped it would bring some measure of closure. Instead, the 15-page report added fuel to a firestorm of speculation. For, despite the measured tone of the report, one detail continues to haunt investigators, aviation analysts and the public alike. Seconds after take-off, both fuel-control switches on the 12-year-old Boeing 787 abruptly moved to "cut-off", cutting fuel to the engines and causing total power loss - a step normally done only after landing. The cockpit voice recording captures one pilot asking the other why he "did the cut-off", to which the person replies that he didn't. The recording doesn't clarify who said what. At the time of take-off, the co-pilot was flying the aircraft while the captain was monitoring. What we know so far about Air India crash investigation

Read the preliminary report

Are India's skies safe? Air safety watchdog responds amid rising concerns The switches were returned to their normal inflight position, triggering automatic engine relight. At the time of the crash, one engine was regaining thrust while the other had relit but had not yet recovered power. The plane was airborne for less than a minute before crashing into a neighbourhood in the western Indian city of Ahmedabad. Several speculative theories have emerged since the preliminary report - a full report is expected in a year or so. The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) and Reuters news agency have reported that "new details in the probe of last month's Air India crash are shifting the focus to the senior pilot in the cockpit". Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera claimed that its sources had told them the first officer repeatedly asked the captain why he "shut off the engines".

Air India plane descending moments before crash

Sumeet Sabharwal, 56, was the captain on the flight, while Clive Kunder, 32, was the co-pilot who was flying the plane. Together, the two pilots had more than 19,000 hours of flight experience - nearly half of it on the Boeing 787. Both had passed all pre-flight health checks before the crash. Understandably, the wave of speculative leaks has rattled investigators and angered Indian pilots. As theories swirl about Air India crash, key details remain unknown Last week, India's Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), the lead investigator, stated in a release that "certain sections of the international media are repeatedly attempting to draw conclusions through selective and unverified reporting". It described these "actions [as] irresponsible, especially while the investigation remains ongoing". Jennifer Homendy, chairwoman of the US's National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which is assisting the investigation, said on X that the media reports were "premature and speculative" and that investigations of this magnitude take time". Back in India, the Indian Commercial Pilots' Association condemned the rush to blame the crew as "reckless" and "deeply insensitive", urging restraint until the final report is out. Sam Thomas, head of the Airline Pilots' Association of India (ALPA India), told the BBC that "speculation has triumphed over transparency", emphasising the need to review the aircraft's maintenance history and documentation alongside the cockpit voice recorder data. At the heart of the controversy is the brief cockpit recording in the report - the full transcript, expected in the final report, should shed clearer light on what truly happened.

OpenAI and UK sign deal to use AI in public services

The Labour government's eager adoption of AI has previously been criticised by campaigners, such as musicians' who oppose its unlicensed use of their music .

Technology Secretary Peter Kyle said that "AI will be fundamental in driving change" in the UK and "driving economic growth".

The agreement signed by the firm and the science department could give OpenAI access to government data and see its software used in education, defence, security, and the justice system.

OpenAI, the firm behind ChatGPT, has signed a deal to use artificial intelligence to increase productivity in the UK's public services, the government has announced.

The text of the memorandum of understanding says the UK and OpenAI will "improve understanding of capabilities and security risks, and to mitigate those risks".

It also says that the UK and OpenAI may develop an "information sharing programme", adding that they will "develop safeguards that protect the public and uphold democratic values".

OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman said the plan would "deliver prosperity for all".

"AI is a core technology for nation building that will transform economies and deliver growth," he added.

The deal comes as the UK government looks for ways to improve the UK's stagnant economy, which is forecast to have grown at 0.1% to 0.2% for the April to June period.

The UK government has also made clear it is open to US AI investment, having struck similar deals with OpenAI's rivals Google and Anthropic earlier this year.

It said its OpenAI deal "could mean that world-changing AI tech is developed in the UK, driving discoveries that will deliver growth".

Generative AI software like OpenAI's ChatGPT can produce text, images, videos, and music from prompts by users.

The technology does this based on data from books, photos, film footage, and songs, raising questions about potential copyright infringement or whether data has been used with permission.

The technology has also come under fire for giving false information or bad advice based on prompts.